63 The Janovite Theory and the Renewal of the Lay Chalice Helena Krmíčková (Brno) We have been meeting Matthias of Janov at the origin of the chalice’s renewal for more than five and a half centuries.1 Jan Rokycana first testified at the Council of Basel that a Master of Paris, by the name of Matthias, had initiated communion sub utraque, and the claim was repeated by further theologians and historians until the appearance in 1881 of Josef Kalousek’s "O historii kalicha v dobách předhusitských" [History of the Chalice in the Pre-Hussite Times],2 with enjambments well into the twentieth century,3 and virtually up to the present.4 Janov was by no means the sole actor cast into the role of the chalice restorer. As early as the fifteenth century the centre stage was occupied by Master Peter of Dresden, who had allegedly inspired Jakoubek of Stříbro;5 the theory about a continuous use of the lay chalice in Bohemia since the time of Sts. Cyril and Methodius emerged in the sixteenth century;6 and in the twentieth century there appeared first the theory of Wyclif’s influence on Jakoubek’s Utraquism,7 and finally the theory which heard in Bohemian Utraquism an echo of the Eastern eucharistic practice, discovered by Jerome of Prague on his Lithuanian journey.8 Kalousek’s rejection of the Cyrilomethodian theory, and of the theory about Master of Paris’s Utraquism, still left intact the Dresden theory and the subsequently suggested possibilities. Thus it seemed almost superfluous to return once more to Janov. Yet, it so happened and Janov with his eucharistic treatises came to occupy the leading position among the 1) From the literature, analyzing the theories of the renewal of the chalice, let us note at least D. Girgensohn, Peter von Pulkau und die Wiedereinführung des Laienkelches. Leben und Wirkung eines Wiener Theologen in der Zeit des grossen Schismas, [Veröffentlichungen des Max-Planck-Instituts für Geschichte, 12] (Gottingen, 1964) 129-148; Howard Kaminsky, A History of the Hussite Revolution (Berkeley, 1967) 98-108; Helena Krmíčková, Studie a texty k počátkům kalicha v Čechách, [Spisy Masarykovy univerzity v Brně, Filozofická fakulta, 310] (Brno, 1997) 7-15. 2) ČČM 50 (1881) 543-547. 3) The most significant contribution is L. Brož, ”Utrakvismus Matěje z Janova,” Theologická příloha Křesťanské revue 20 (1953) 20-23. 4) Janov’s advocacy of the chalice is deemed tenable by František Šmahel, Husitská revoluce, (Prague, 1995-19962) 2:84; and M. Ransdorf, Mistr Jan Hus (Prague, 1993) 47. 5) Sources concerning Peter of Dresden are analyzed by Mathilde Uhlirz, ”Petrus von Dresden: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Laienkelches,” Zeitschrift des deutschen Vereines für die Geschichte Mährens und Schlesiens 18 (1914) 227-238; H. Boehmer, ”Magister Peter von Dresden,” Neues Archiv für Sächsische Geschichte und Altertumskunde, 36 (1915) 212-231. 6) This theory has been attributed to Bohuslav Bílejovský, Kronika církevní, ed. Josef Skalický (Prague, 1816) 7-20. 7) See Mathilde Uhlirz, Die Genesis der vier Prager Artikel, [Sitzungberichte der Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, 175, Bd. 3, Abhandlung] (Vienna,1914). 8) František Bartoš, ”Paměti M. Jeronyma Pražského,” Lumír 44 (1916) 289-302, and in several of his subsequent publications. 64 possible causes effecting a restoration of the chalice in Bohemia. The reappearance of the Janovite theory - albeit in a somewhat altered form - owed its spark to two notable historians, Vlastimil Kybal and Jan Sedlák. In the first and still most extensive monograph on Janov,9 Kybal - partly inspired by Palacký - pointed to the genetic connections between the writings of Janov and those of Jakoubek. On the basis of this discovery, derived mainly from a comparison of their ideas concerning the Antichrist,10 Kybal maintained that also on the issue of the chalice Jakoubek drew on the teaching about the frequent communion in Janov’s Regulae.11 A convincing support for Kybal’s theory was provided by Jan Sedlák, who identified a whole series of borrowings from Janov in Jakoubek’s oldest preserved Utraquist work, the quaestio titled Quia heu in templis.12 Subsequently, other signs were revealed, pointing to a direct influence of the Master of Paris’s work on Jakoubek. This new epiphany of the Janovite theory enjoyed a wide acceptance, while most of the others received the role of a supporting cast in a play the denouement of which was virtually predetermined, or in Paul De Vooght’s words ”suspended in the air.”13 I have rejected the relevance of the supporting players in my monograph, Studie a texty k počátkům kalicha v Čechách [Studies and Texts Concerning the Origins of the Chalice in Bohemia],14 in which I recognize exclusively and solely the Janovite theory. It was clear for a long time that the chalice had not enjoyed an uninterrupted continuity in Bohemia, and that it had to reappear in 1414, or - to use Jakoubek’s terms - had to be newly revealed.15 It is, therefore, unnecessary to consider the Cyrilomethodian theory any further. The twentieth-century theories are based on the hypothetical speculations of their authors: those of Mathilde Uhlirz in the Wyclifite case, and those of František Bartoš in the Jeromite case can also be dismissed. There were neither primary sources, nor contemporary mentions to substantiate their surmises. It was impossible for Wyclif to influence Jakoubek on the issue of the chalice. He was not a Utraquist and his theory of remanence, even if it had affected Jakoubek’s view of the eucharist, would tend to dampen, rather than inflame, Jakoubek’s zeal for Utraquism. After all, the Evangelical Doctor did not stress - if he did not entirely deny - the real presence, which was the very inspiration and ground of Jakoubek’s chalice.16 There was no reason for Jerome to have been overwhelmed by the Utraquist practice of the Eastern Church in 1413-1414, 9) Vlastimil Kybal, M. Matěj z Janova: Jeho život, spisy a učení [Spisy poctěné jubilejní cenou Královské české společnosti nauk v Praze, 17] (Prague, 1905). 10) Vlastimil Kybal, ”M. Matěj z Janova a M. Jakoubek ze Stříbra: Srovnávací kapitola o Antikristu,” ČČH 11 (1905) 22-38. 11) Kybal, M. Matěj z Janova: Jeho život, 317-318. 12) 6-501. 13) Paul De Vooght, Jacobellus de Stříbro (+ 1429), premier théologien du hussitisme, [Bibliothèque de la Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique, 54] (Louvain, 1972) 129. 14) Krmíčková, Studie a texty k počátkům kalicha v Čechách, 47-123. 15) On Jakoubek’s revelation see particularly Ferdinand Seibt, ”Die revelatio des Jacobellus von Mies über die Kelchkommunion,” Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 22 (1966) 618- 624. 16) Krmíčková, Studie a texty k počátkům kalicha v Čechách, 54-60; David R. Holeton addresses the complexity of this issue in his "Wyclif's Bohemian Fate: A Reflection on the Contextualization of Wyclif in Bohemia," CV 32 (1989) 216, 221, nn. 28, 29. 65 inasmuch he had traveled in Orthodox regions earlier.17 Moreover, there are no mentions of a Greek Orthodox model in the early days of Utraquism, and from the start the Bohemian communion from the chalice differed markedly from the Greek rite of communio intincta.18 This leaves only the subsidiary Dresden theory, which has distinctly metamorphosed in the twentieth century. Peter of Dresden, the protagonist of the fifteenth-century chronicler, was superceded by Nicholas of Dresden who - in distinction from his older namesake at the house of Black Rose [Černá Růže] - actually composed several genuine Utraquist treatises.19 Yet, Nicholas is not an appropriate candidate for the palm of primacy. He was not the conveyor of the chalice from abroad, inasmuch as his Utraquist writings postdated his arrival to Prague. Moreover, these compositions came after those of Jakoubek.20 When all is said and done, there really remains only Jakoubek and the enigmatic influence of the Master of Paris. Despite the assertions of Rokycana and his epigones, Matthias of Janov was not a Utraquist; he was an advocate only of frequent holy communion. Thus he is characterized by Nicholas of Dresden, that is by the man who cooperated in the introduction of the lay chalice in 1414.21 Thus Rokycana’s assertion is challenged by his Conciliar opponent Jan Stojkovič, relying on the synodal acts.22 After all, what a great excitement the chalice caused in 1414, compared with the muted response to Janov’s defense of the frequent communion. The limit of his eucharistic aspiration can also be deduced from his Regulae.23 Nonetheless there is a quantum leap between the influence of Wyclif (whose ”subunism” we have also emphasized) and the influence of Janov on Jakoubek. Even Jakoubek’s earliest writings betray the impact of the Magister Parisienses (although cited suppresso nomine),24 and the effect of Janov’s eucharistic treatises is evident from 1412 at the latest. It is attested in that period by his Tractatus responsivus,25 in which Jakoubek followed Janov in 17) In particular, the Holy Land. 18) This fact is noted in Girgensohn, Peter von Pulkau, 148; see also Krmíčková, Studie a texty k počátkům kalicha v Čechách, 49-60. 19) An early reference to Nicholas’s importance among the initial Utraquists appeared in Jan Sedlák, ”Počátkové kalicha,” Časopis katolického duchovenstva 52 [77] (1911) 786-789; 54 [79] (1913) 406-408, 468-470. 20) Krmíčková, Studie a texty k počátkům kalicha v Čechách, 61-85. 21) In the sermon ”Sermo ad clerum Nisi manducaveritis,” published in Romolo Cegna, Nicolai (ut dicunt) de Dresda vulgo appellati de Čerruc (de Černá růže id est Rosa Nigra [+1418?]) Puncta, Mediaevalia Philosophica Polonorum 33 (Warsaw, 1996) 184. 22) This episode is recorded in ”Replica Magistri Johannis de Ragusio ad replicam Magistri Johannis Rokycana,” ms.